Grimes v. Hetzel et al (INMATE2)
ORDER directing that the 63 MOTION to Dismiss be STRICKEN from the file for non-compliance with the order of 9/13/2010, as further set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Wallace Capel, Jr on 5/2/13. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TONY EUGENE GRIMES, #148 206,
GARY HETZEL, et al.,
) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:10-CV-746-TMH
On April 30, 2013 Petitioner erroneously filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. No 63.)
This motion is not properly before the court as Petitioner submitted it without permission of
the court. (See Doc. No. 4, pg. 6 - “no motion for summary judgment, motion to dismiss
or any other dispositive motions . . . be filed by any party without permission of the
court.”). The aforementioned order further directed that “[i]f any pleading denominated as
a . . . dispositive motion is sent to the court [without the requisite permission having been
granted], the court shall not file or otherwise treat the pleading as a dispositive motion until
and unless further order of the court.” (Id.) Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 63) be stricken from the file for noncompliance with the order of September 13, 2010.1
Even if Petitioner submitted a request for leave to file a dispositive motion the court would not
be inclined to grant the request at this juncture in the proceedings especially where said request is filed
more than two years after the instant action was filed as well as after entry of the March 19, 2013
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge recommending denial of the petition.
Done, this 2nd day of May 2013.
/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.
WALLACE CAPEL, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?